If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I had started a thread where I claimed that Rickey Henderson's 1982 season was mediocre at best and that is overrated because of the 130 stolen bases, but it wasn't a really a good season because he got caught so many times (I've learned a lot since then).

Here was Brett's reply:

I meant to post this last night, but the net was down here.

Let's analyze.
First, his on-base% was .398 and his relative on-base% was 1.236.
Evans was first at .402 but only had a relative ob% of 1.196.
Harrah was next at .398 but also lower in relative OB% at 1.213.
And looking down the list, he lead all players in relative OB% which has to count for something.

Second, his OB% was walk heavy-yes, but this also means that his very good OB% took place over more plate appearances than his below average slugging%. His OB% was over 656 plate appearances while his slugging was only over 536 at bats meaning that his OB% should probably be weighted by that proportion when making evaluations. Because of this, walk heavy OB% are not worse than hit heavy OB% for players who have below average slugging percentages. (see what I'm saying?)

Third, if you mess around with run expectancies just slightly, you can come up with very different net values for steals and CS.

Basically, excluding the added cost of making outs, a steal is worth about as much as the loss of a base-runner from first base.

Different evaluations may put a steal of second at as high as .25 runs and as low as .19 runs and an eliminated runner at as low as -.25 runs and as high as -.39 runs.

An out, in his run scoring environment would also be about -.18 and if one uses a higher run scoring environment it might go as high as -.22 which is not accurate in this case.

So using the most favorable scenario, his 130 steals were worth +32.5 and his CS and outs about -18 for a net of 14 runs. Also 14 runs in that run scoring environment would be equivalent to over 4 games worth of offense. 12-15 games worth of offense above replacement would be a top MVP contender season.

Using the worst case scenario, his 130 steals were worth only about 24.7 runs (though your numbers are a little lower) and his 42 CS about -23.9 for a net of merely +.8 runs.

Another way to look at it is that a SB is almost as valuable as turing a single into a double, and a CS is about the same as eliminating a walk, and adding an out. A SB is actually probably worth almost exactly the same as .7 extra bases with an average breakdown of double, triples and home-runs. A CS is so close to equal to eliminating a walk and adding an out that I will leave it at that.

So if we want to modify his on-base and slugging percentages to include his base stealing numbers he would have 205 TBs + 91 equivalent due to steal or 296. We would also remove 42 walks giving him 74, and add 42 outs giving him 435.

This would give him effective slugging percentage of .512 and an effective on base% of .332 (though you could discredit the walk at a different rate from slugging instead). This would mean that his effective OPS+ would be 133, but could be as low as 127 if you dock him differently from different components of OBP and SLG%.

So I think its safe to say that it was along the lines of a straight up 127-133 OPS+ season which, for a corner outfielder who was probably a little above average would be more than mediocre but fairly far from MVP caliber though:

A good base-stealer would have, in theory, a better likelyhood of producing more leveraged value stolen bases due to situations, and we can't discount that he had good speed on the bases which didn't show up in the regular stat line (he only had 5 GIDP). We also can't discount his specific disruption factor on the bases.

Anyway in post script

I would place a SB at about .25 runs and a CS in his era at about -.53 for the loss of baserunner and the out. A loss of baserunner can't be more than equivalent to a walk which is about .36, and an out cuts out the average production of a typical hitter. If you use bases, a plate appearance is worth about .36, or about .18 runs, but if you look at the runs per plate appearance in the league, it was only about 4.3/25.5 or about .17, so I think that an out is inappropriately docked in that era. An out only costed .17 runs and that is a fact. If the run expectancy is off, it is off.

His steals and CS, in raw terms only were probably worth 10 runs, or 2.4 games worth of offense, and again that is significant.

Put most simply, it would be about the same as turning 10 singles into home runs. That would give him again an estimated 133 OPS+.

IT WAS PROBABLY VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL IN VALUE TO ANDRE DAWSON'S '87 SEASON.

Comparable to Don Mattingingly in '88 and '89 (even if you discount Henderson's speed when not running).

About equal to the value that Pete Rose averaged for the '70s in which he was voted player of the decade.

Better than Jim Rice in '83 when GIDP are factored in and much better than Rice in '75 when he was runner up MVP.

About equal to David Ortiz in '04.

About equal to Griffey in 2000.

Those are the ones that it is safe to say that for.

MVP-NO

STAR-YES, solid

MEDIOCRE-if you mean mediocre among seasons by hall of famers yes, its probably a straight down the line average season among all seasons produced by hall of fame caliber players.

Chris pretty much echoes my feeling on the incessant player A vs player B threads. I have no idea was better between Joltin' Joe and the Commerce Comet. And neither does anyone else.

Originally Posted by csh19792001

The bottom line?

Based on what statisticians/sabermetricians have determined to be of most value, even with war credit and taking into account the park effects, Dimaggio *might* pull somewhat statistically with Mantle. Still the numbers are what they are, and WWII happened. The real quarrel here is with A) which player you prefer in style or in character because of your own preconceived notions about greatness/value. This is just an exercise in confirmation bias and, well, truculence and being ornery just for the sake of being ornery. And an expression/creation of a few people with way too much time on their hands barking nonstop for a week at strangers. As someone said, it's anti-productive and the worst baseball fever can be.

And another reason why people like myself and Honus Wagner Rules I haven't started a ranking poll or gotten into these fights for years. Mantle has better sabermetric stats; who was greater depends on what and who you value. There, I just saved the keystrokes expressed vis-a-vis about 700 posts of total BS on this thread....

A lot of it is image/character/aura, and Dimaggio has that in spades (even though he shouldn't, if you've read books about his life, you'll know what a conflicted, fundamentally insecure, often malicious person he was.....as was Mantle.)

If you like the walk/take a ton of pitches, more sabermetrically favored guy, you'll take Mantle. If you're more traditional in your orientation towards evaluating players, or if you grew up with in the time of (or with elders who lauded players) of Yankees of yore. You'll pick Joe D.

Good post, Matthew. With a normal length career typical of a player of Joltin' Joe's caliber he'd have one of the highest WAR totals ever.

Originally Posted by Matthew C.

WAR gives Dimaggio 80ish WAR in only 13 or so years - one of the best WAR per year rates in history. Sabermetrics in general are not anti- Dimaggio. His WAR is so low because he played relatively so little to the other all-timers, not because his skills/production is ignored. Without missing years to service, he would be well over 100 WAR. Don't let one poster paint the whole picture for you.

O'Malley was a business man. Business is about making money. How much Chinese made stuff do you have in your home? Most of us cant avoid it no matter how hard we try. Those people make almost everything anymore because American corporations have gone to where the labor is dirt cheap. How much pain and human misery has that been causing American workers and families over the last 30 years? O'Malley is NOT representative of the WORST corporate types. He is representative of the most TYPICAL corporate types. It is what it is, to quote the currently popular phrase.

American commerce is not an arena for the wide-eyed idealist. Branch Rickey was a man who stole players under contract to their Negro League clubs and offered no compensation or anything at all. He knew he wouldnt have to, that no Negro League owner dared stand against the integration of MLB. They (The black press of the day)would have crucified whoever tried to stand on his or her contractual rights. Stories about Rickey's negotiating practices, his farm system practices, his general business practices, are unflattering and paint him in the same stripe as people like to paint O'Malley, if you take an *objective* look at the man, and ignore the pious way he presented himself, and conducted his *personal* (not business) life.

O'Malley wasnt sneaky or conniving. He did what Walt Disney did when he secretly bought up orange groves in both Anaheim Calif and later Orlando Fla. What should he do? Announce he is building Disney Theme Parks in both sites and get gouged for the land? Its the same thing with O'Malley. If he announces in 1950, the minute he takes control of the team. that he is moving to LA ASAP, what happens to his revenue stream? Who would devalue their investment like that ? O'Malley played hardball in business and the Mayor of NYC and Robert Moses should have been savvy enough to know that. When he sold Ebbets Field in 1955 that should have been an Atomic Bomb, to the politicians at least, if not the fanbase in general. (Who really should have reacted the exact same way, truth be told.)

Would I buy a car from him? It depends. Caveat Emptor. I always buy my cars very carefully, and always assume that *whoever* sells it to me, Walter O'Malley or Mother Teresa, or anyone else, that they are out to screw me, if I am dumb enough to allow it to happen. Would I go into business with him? That would never be possible. O'Malley was a man who believed in control. He wouldnt take partners on unless he had to. I'm not aware that he ever did. He had to contend with interests that*already* owned slices of the team. If I saw the economic bonanza of baseball as presciently as he did, I would have done what he did in his place. He bought Rickey out. He didnt kill him and toss him in the East River, or bury him under home plate at Ebbets Field. That is *business*!

I dont think most patrons of Dodger Stadium have complaints about the experiences they have had there. The team has drawn a staggering number of fans since they moved there in 1958. I dont have exact figures as I write this, but I think they lead MLB in attendance over the last 50 years by a ridiculously enormous margin.

As for O'Malley as a "visionary pioneer" I dont believe he was one. The idea was obvious, it didnt take someone like Nikola Tesla (a true visionary genius) to come up with it. If no WWII, maybe Don Barnes would've been the one to become wealthy beyond his dreams.

And Bill responds...

Originally Posted by Bill Burgess

Thank you, Cal.Eagle for a very strong, incisive post. We have different values and that's fine. You seem to understand what O'Malley was, and accept him as that. And that is fine, too.

But I also think I know what he was. You say he did all these things with his eyes wide open, and you are not bothered by that at all.

But for him to wear a button, "Keep the Dodgers in Brooklyn", when he knew well he wasn't going to -- well, there's a word for that. We normally call that lying. Lying through his teeth, to his customers, who had stuck by him, made him terribly rich. If lying to your customers, who didn't have to stick by you, but did, is just fine with you, what can I say?

Normally, people avoid people who prove they can't be trusted. Walter proved that he was dead set on deceiving his fans, in order to milk them for their money, and you ask, "Who wouldn't lie to a lot of people to make themselves rich?!"

I can tell you right now that there are a whole lot of people, millions in fact, who do NOT lie, who do not intentionally deceive others for money, and yet succeed in business. Treating one's customers with integrity has made at least as many businessmen successful as those who try to lie/cheat their way to the top.

It's called ethics. Business ethics. I was a self-employed windown washer for about 15 years, and I still have many of my original customers. My slogan was, "A good job for a fair price". I did some poor people for free for many years. I refused to raise my prices for years, and that is how I kept my customers. Many finally raised my prices on their own, and gave me huge tips. Sometimes, I was sorely tempted to raise my prices when times were tight, and finally I did raise them, gradually.

I could also go into my present profession of adult care-giving. My strategy is to serve my client so completely, that he now believes that he couldn't manage without me. It would be easy to take advantage, but I won't do that.

I, like other fans, are not wildly idealistic. Is it too idealistic to expect an owner to not leave you for a wildly more lucrative market, after you've treated HIM like he's gold?

O'Malley had the most loyal, best fans in baseball. And to answer your earlier question, many of those fans did become Mets fans.

I guess we disagree on how businessmen should conduct themselves. You don't have to screw others just because you can. We're not all that cynical. Many people got rich by bringing a better product to market, in a clean, ethical way. But Walter O'Malley was much less of a man than you seem to think he was. He was out for himself. And his fans in LA? They were lucky there wasn't a more lucrative market available to Walter after he got there. He would have jumped them just as connivingly, after making sure not to tip his hand beforehand.

The process of selecting players is not mechanistic, as in my simplifying model, and if the process really were random--a monkey throwing darts at a list of names--then your point would be correct. However, this is not the case.

I think you--and Sultan--are confusing random processes with stochastic ones, those involving probability. A great deal of effort and expense goes into selecting amateur players, especially in comparison to the way it used to be. The notion that it's nothing but a crapshoot can really be sustained only by selected anecdote and parti pris. Or so I believe. If player selection prior to minor league development is random, then systematic evidence would be all over the map. Please point it out.

This is a multi billion dollar industry, and to believe that its primary acquisitions of assets are random is, frankly, incorrect. The value of a draft choice can be seen in its use as compensation and in trades. In his second baseball abstract, Bill James shows the difference between the performance of first- and tenth- round draft picks from 1965 to 1988. It's what you'd expect from a situation where probability plays a part--not at all what you'd expect from a random selection process.

To see a superstar signed as the result of an almost random process, take a look at Lefty Gomez's path to the majors in the biography "Lefty" by his daughter. Or any number of player accounts in "The Glory of their Times."

I think MLB's postseason has by far the most competition when it comes to getting ratings. But, as usual, when the Yankees are involved, numbers go up. This years ALCS saw a 28% rise for TBS over 2012's series between St. Louis and Milwaukee.

But when the large markets aren't involved, there's likely to be a fairly low-showing. I saw earlier comments comparing viewership now compared to 1978. IMO, we can't really compare the two. Back then, there wasn't cable or satellite tv - at least not in the majority of the nation. Aside from NBC, ABC & CBS, there was very little to see on television during prime time as UHF channels carried very little and PBS was... PBS. In our town, you had two other options - HBO or PRISM (a local provider that carried hometown sports in Philadelphia). We could tell who owned what by simply looking on rooftops and seeing the type of antenna a home had as each had its own distinct look. They were also fairly expensive and didn't provide much.

But network tv back then was primarily geared for 30+ year olds and the only live sporting event was Monday Night Football.

Now, we have over 100 channels to choose from with fall schedules premiering new shows that accomodate every market possible. Add in that we now have NCAA football broadcast at least three nights a week, Thursday, Sunday & Monday night Football as well as wrestling, MMA events and so on, the options for people are practically endless. Then you also have the group of people who simply mess around online.

Back then most households in my neighborhood had one decent tv set. Some had a second, but it was often very small or even black & white. Now, it's common to see homes with 3-4 televisions which then allows others in the household to choose something else to watch.

I guess what I'm saying is that people didn't necessarily tune in to the World Series because it was the best thing on tv. They tuned in because it was pretty much the only thing on tv.